[6tsch] work item 2 in the charter

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BB711E814E for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.537
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RS3ew7gnmsW2 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027C621E80C7 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5872; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374249969; x=1375459569; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=lSVUWPA8evxunXNRYbWfmOGLgTj2f4DpoQEVv9Asq2c=; b=aUvrv+uQouqgNSkerwwXLmRwSzd6dlOqmy8jggWrrifqzgC0PJD/pDRw 4T5Xrr5H5L5OJz8Hc/WHo90zmavaCp5zTTxBPY6R52CIPXatcxpuBjFbE IACdpe4FAbO6P3UNPBXLSeqBcS4mwSrhlpnE/XAKy4GLqhnx+iTK7fbAQ s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAMxi6VGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgkJENVDASYEQFnSCJgEELV4BKlYmAQQbiAgMljagRwSNPIIiLYMbbgOpKoMSgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,702,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="236994074"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2013 16:06:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6JG66W9027383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:06:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.35]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:173.37.183.34%12]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:06:06 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: work item 2 in the charter
Thread-Index: Ac6EmbKxzX+4s4fTQS+8Ae15SDHFIw==
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:06:05 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:05:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84137DB02@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.167.27]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84137DB02xmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [6tsch] work item 2 in the charter
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:06:19 -0000

Dear all:

Please review the latest draft of the charter at https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/src
Now is a good time to find the bugs!
Work Item 2 in the charter (https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/charter-ietf-6tsch/) is still like this:

"
2. Produce "6TSCH centralized management" to define the mechanism by which an
external Path Computation Entity can communicate with the 6top protocol layer
of the different nodes in the network (1) to modify their TSCH schedule and
(2) to gather link quality statistics and data flow requirements.  The WG will
initially look at PCEP and CoAP.
Depending on the applicability of PCEP, this document will be targeted to
Proposed standard.
"

Since the time we wrote this, we realized that there is a lot more to do than a simple increment to PCE/P.

At the call we agreed that we should keep it to the level of requirements for this round. Do we all agree on this?

If so we'll need to revisit that text... Let us work on this early next week, this is probably the most urgent thing we have to do before the BoF.

Cheers,

Pascal